What’s better?

Imagine a farm animal, like a steer, that only exists because it was bred and raised to be slaughtered for meat and leather. Is it better (by whatever definition of “better” you have) for it to have lived or to have never been born at all? Is it any worse to be killed and made into steaks and shoes than to die of old age diseases and become worm food?

Imagine a congenitally deaf and blind puppy? It can still enjoy life, but people who keep it wouldn’t have room for a healthy puppy they’d keep otherwise. What’s better, for the deaf and blind puppy to have a life, or for a healthy one? Or would those two lives be equivalently good, by whatever definition we use.

4 Responses to What’s better?

Answer to the first question; if you want to protect a species, put it on the menu. People will then be raising that species all over the world, carefully and meticulously, for profit.

The second question smacks of the Eugenicists thinking (or maybe they both do). Since they’re dogs though, presumably acquired and cared for by some individual, then it’s that individual person’s choice. If you want a guard dog or a bird dog, etc., then deaf and blind aren’t going to work, obviously.

The more flippant, and maybe the more correct answer to both questions is; it’s none of your business, until it is actually your animal, at which point it’s your decision.

Animals are not people. Animals are in fact either property or they are wild. If property, these decisions are up to the owner. If they are wild, they’re on their own or they are affecting the land someone owns and are subject to that land owner.

MUCH of what we’ve been trained to discuss regarding animals comes from the Eugenicists and Progressives (racists, Fascists, communists and Nazis) and their ideological progeny. Their goal has been, not to elevate the status of animals closer to that of humans, but to lower the status of humans below that of animals. Once you can grasp that, these questions are much easier to tackle, or they don’t come up at all.

Is it better (by whatever definition of âbetterâ you have) for it to have lived or to have never been born at all?
Given that I need meat to stay healthy, and I wear leather, it’s better for me if the cow lives.

Whatâs better, for the deaf and blind puppy to have a life, or for a healthy one?
That’s for the owners to decide.

whatever definition we use
Ah, there’s the rub. Most of the controversy over these decisions comes from people who want their definition to be the only definition.

It should be noted that many a dictator/mass killer has been an overt “animal lover”, or rather they’ve made a point of portraying themselves as such. It is common enough that it could be said to be a trait of the sociopath.